wow Kev you don't have to call people names who disagree with you lol money in education is not the problem. No time in history have we thrown more money to a over bloated government program with such bad results. It's because government has no buisness in education other then on a local level. The more hands the money goes through and sticks to the less there is left for where it was inteded to go in the first place. And as far as blaming the war on terror check this little peice out as far as where our money goes to. It talks about health care for kids rather than education but it's the same principal. "Speaker Pelosi says that for the cost of 41 days in Iraq, 10 million children can receive health insurance for a year... Democrats argue that it's an either/or proposition. The choice, they say, is between defense spending in general and funding the Iraq war in particular and expanding programs like the State Child Health Insurance Program beyond its original intent to meet a need largely already met by the private sector... Democrats such as Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin have proposed a separate 'war tax' to pay for the War on Terror. We have one: It's called the income tax, which began as a 2% levy only on the very rich, but which has morphed into an economy-strangling behemoth that finances an annual budget of $3,000,000,000,000-that's three trillion dollars. Defense spending constituted only $528 billion of that budget in fiscal 2006-or about 4% of gross domestic product. In 1953, during the Korean War, it hit a postwar high of 14.2% of GDP. In 1968, in the middle of Vietnam, it reached 9.5%. And in 1986, at the height of the Reagan buildup that doomed the evil empire, it was 6.8%. We're not spending too much on the military. We're spending too little to meet both the needs of the War on Terror and the rising threat of a nuclear Iran, not to mention dealing with the frantic pace at which both Russia and China are arming... The Preamble to the Constitution speaks of the need to 'provide for the common defence' and to 'promote the general welfare.' But 'promoting' doesn't mean providing. And while the Constitution speaks loudly on the structure of our armed forces and the role of Congress and commander in chief, it is silent on things like children's insurance. Democrats forget that the greatest social service that a government can perform for its people is to keep them alive and free." -Investor's Business Daily
2007-10-15 20:47:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by crusinthru 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have to be kidding! In my state of Nevada, 91% of the money appropriated for public education, from Kindergarten through University studies, goes to salaries and benefits for teachers and staff. Take a look at how the money is spent in your own community. I suspect you will find the same conditions exist. While you are at it, show me where in the Çonstitution (including the preamble) there is any duty for the Federal government to spend public revenues on education. However, the preamble to that document does set a reason for adopting that Constitution in the first place: "..to provide for the common defense..."
2007-10-16 05:55:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's not the government's job to fund education. Plus, our education system is abysmal, and it's because the government has a monopoly on it. All the government does is throw more and more money at education, and that never fixes it. So, no, we don't need government funding more education.
2007-10-15 18:06:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by AmericanPatriot 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
the government definitely might desire to provide greater tips to state colleges, nonetheless i do no longer think of any help might desire to bypass to non-public colleges. that is in actuality the comparable decision mom and father make: public or deepest college? you may desire to get rather affordable yet stable high quality practise in case you choose for to bypass to a public college, yet you are going to be able to desire to even have the alternative of finding into deepest techniques, that are particularly a lot sure to be greater costly. besides the incontrovertible fact that, the government might desire to help public colleges. i know that throughout manhattan, the regular public college classes has long previous up over $one thousand, beginning final January and concluding this coming college twelve months (which does no longer be undesirable if the money became coming returned to the colleges, which it is not, yet it rather is yet another concern altogether). all of it quantities to much less much less costly practise coupled with a cut back in high quality, inclusive of bigger training and a smaller determination of classes provided. the government might desire to guard that. the government might desire to additionally shelter the help provided by FAFSA. i know folk who, per their relatives situations, might desire to settle for an entire experience to a public college, yet get subsequent to no longer something from the two the government or the state. that's something the government ought to help out with a lot.
2017-01-03 17:38:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by stranger 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The goverment should use the money that goes to the war to fund in more useful things such as police, fire stations, health care and of corse education.
2007-10-15 18:10:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kat Tun! 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
you must be an idiot 565 billion dollars are spent on so called education you dunba----
2007-10-15 18:10:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by norm b 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
for gods sake don't ask for more money from the gov, especially for our schools, don't you see what a mess our educational system has become since the gov, got involved?? our kids go to college and don't even know how to read or write, thanks to our great fed, gov, the same holds true for any and every thing the gov, gets their greedy hands in, please lets try to get the gov out of every thing we can , they screw ever thing up ,
2007-10-15 18:09:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Feeling uneducated lately?
2007-10-15 18:11:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chef 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
well u just answer it
its going to war
2007-10-15 18:04:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋